US Copyright Office: ar-1983

8/14/2019 US Copyright Office: ar-1983

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-copyright-office-ar-1983 1/34

ANNUAL R E P O R T O F T H E

REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS

For the fiscal year ending ~e~ternber0

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS / WASHINGTON / 1984



REPORT OF THER E G I m OF COPYRIGHTS,1883

quality maintained. As an example, each divi-

sion concerned with the recordation of docu-ments adjusted its operations and articulatedthem with the others in order to expedite thesearch for recently received documents; simi-larly, the adjustments needed to convert froma registration fee to a filing fee were the prod-uct of cooperation among all concerned.

In the Examining Division significant workwas also undertaken to reduce the volume ofcorrespondence, to increase the number ofguide letters and form letters for use insteadof specially composed letters, and to improvethe handling of computer programs, of whichsome seven thousand were received this year

for registration. In the Information and Refer-ence Division studies were conducted whoseobjective was to find a suitable way to copewith the ever-rising volume of incoming tele-phone requests for copyright information.

AUTOMATION

A number of significant developments haveoccurred in the Copyright Office's continuingautomation program. The automated copyrightcatalog records, first made available at the endof the last fiscal year through four video dis-

play terminals located in the card catalogarea, continued to be enhanced. Two files arecurrently accessible, monographs and docu-ments [known by the acronyms COHM andCOHD, respectively) representing all suchitems cataloged since the new copyright lawwent into effect on January 1, 1978. Furtherenhancements to this system expected in thecoming months are weekly file updates (pres-ently updates are effected bimonthly), addi-tion of the serial file [COHS), and extensionof access to these files to all reading rooms inthe Library of Congress.

As explained elsewhere in this report, thecopyright registration fee was converted to anonrefundable filing fee in November 1982. norder to implement this change, the first stageof COINS 111, the Copyright Office In-Process

System, was made operational. The result is

that approximately 40 percent of all applica-tions for registration now come under auto-mated control from their point of receipt.These are the claims that are paid for by deb-iting deposit accounts which have beenestablished for large-volume remitters. Suchclaims, when combined with the 15 percent ofthe "cash" claims that are tracked by theAutomated Correspondence Management Sys-tem (CMS), amounted to 55 percent or moreof all claims being tracked through automationwhile they are in the registration process.An important milestone was reached in thegoal of implementing fully automated tracking

of all claims with the completion in June 1983of the specifications for handling in-processrecords on COINS 111. The specifications werethe result of a collaborative effort among staffin the Copyright Office who will be the even-tual users of COINS and the systems analystsin the Automated Systems Office who areresponsible for systems design and implemen-tation.

COMPENDIUM OF COPYRIGHT OFFICE

PRACTICES

Work moved toward conclusion on the newCompendium of Copyright Office Practices,which reflects the examining and related prac-tices of the office under the new copyrightlaw. The public will be invited to comment onthe new compendium before its issuance. Itwill be published in loose-leaf form to facili-tate updating and will be sold by the Govern-ment Printing Office as a priced publication.It is believed that the project will be finishedin the coming fiscal year.

COPYRIGHT OFFICE PUBLICATION S

The Copyright Office published during theyear volumes 41 and 42 of the series of bulle-



REPORTOFTHEREG[- OF COPYRIGHTS, 1803

tins entitled Decisions of the United States

Courts Involving Copyright. These volumescontain the texts of the 1977 and 1978 cases,respectively; the two volumes together con-tain more than two thousand pages and two

hundred cases. The series as a whole covers

copyright cases from 1790 onward, containsextensive indexes, and is sold by the Govern-ment Printing Office. Volumes containing latercases are in preparation. In addition, a numberof new circulars were added to the battery ofprinted material which provides the publicwith general information on copyright andspecific instructions on how to make registra-

tion.

SECTION 108(i) REPORT

The Copyright Act (Title 17 of the UnitedStates Code) which took full effect January 1,1978, provides in section 108(i) that five years

from that date, and at five-year intervals there-

after, the Register of Copyrights, "after con-sulting with representatives of authors, bookand periodical publishers, and other owners

of copyrighted material, and with representa-tives of library users and librarians," shallsubmit to the Congress a report setting forththe extent to which the provisions of thecopyright law authorizing certain kinds of re-

production and distribution of copyrighted

works by qualifying librarians have achieved"the intended statutory balancing of the rightsof creators, and the needs of users."

Pursuant to this mandate, the Register sub-mitted to Congress in January 1983 a reportwhich deals with the copying practices oflibraries and archives, and their patrons, andwhich focuses upon the balance intended by

the act. Steps taken by the Copyright Officeleading to the report included a series of na-

tionwide hearings; a survey by King Research,

Inc., which looked at more than five hundred

libraries, and as many publishers, to see how

they were faring under the new act, and ad-

duced empirical data for the report; and con-sultation with an advisory committee made upof representatives of authors, publishers,librarians, and users of copyrighted works.

The report concludes that the statutory pro-visions have established a workable frame-

work for obtaining a balance between creators'

rights and users' needs, but that, in certaininstances, a balance has not been achieved inpractice, either because the intent of Congresshas not been carried out fully or because thatintent is not clear to those whose activities

come within the scope of the law. According

to the report, the existence of the intendedstatutory balance can be supported by evi-

dence showing that between 1978 and 1980library acquisition expenditures increasedfaster than the rate of inflation, that duringthe same period the ratio of serial "births" to"deaths" was 3.4 to 1, that some types of

photocopying in certain classes of librarieshave increased very slowly or even decreased,and that serial publishers' revenues increased.

The Copyright Office,however, also pointedto other information showing that there might

be an imbalance in that "substantial quantitiesof the photocopies prepared by and for library

patrons are made for job-related reasons,rather than for the type of private scholarship,

study, or research most favored by the law."

The report noted empirical evidence that inapproximately one-quarter of the library

photocopying transactions, two or more cop-

ies are made, even though section 108 of the

Copyright Act only permits the making of a

single copy.According to the report, there appears to be

confusion among many librarians about how

the copyright law works and why its en-

forcement is frequently their responsibility.

Furthermore, publishers contend that the pres-ent system is seriously imbalanced, and some

of them have asserted their views in print and

by bringing lawsuits.

The Copyright Office made recomrnenda-



tions to rectify what are perceived to beshortcomings in present practices and in thepresent law. The report states that theserecommendations, both statutory and nonstat-utory, should aid in achieving understandingswhich would permit legitimate photocopyingwhile protecting copyright interests. Theseinclude:

Nonstatutory Recommendations

Collective licensing agreements encouraged.All parties affected by library reproductionof copyrighted works are encouraged toparticipate in existing collective licensingarrangements, and to develop new collec-tive arrangements in order to facilitatecompensated copying of copyrighted works.

Voluntary guidelines encouraged. Represen-tatives of authors, publishers, librarians,and users should engage in serious discus-sions with a view to the clarification ofterms and the development of guidelines,both with respect to present photocopyingpractices and the impact of new tech-nological developments on library use ofcopyrighted works. The Copyright Officerecommends that the respective congres-sional copyright committees or subcommit-tees again urge the parties to engage inserious negotiations and report back tothem by a certain date.

Study of surcharge on equipment. In thenext five-year review, a copyright compen-sation scheme based upon a surcharge onphotocopying equipment used at certain lo-

cations and in certain types of institutionsor organizations should be studied, takinginto account experience with such systemsin other countries.

Study of compensation systems based onsampling techniques. In the next five-year

review, various systems for copyright com-pensation based on a percentage of thephotocopying impressions made on ma-chines located at certain places in certaintypes of institutions or organizations, asdetermined by sampling techniques, shouldbe studied.

Further study of new technology issues. Inthe next five-year review, issues relating tothe impact of new technological develop-ments on library use of copyrighted worksshould be studied.

Archival preservation. Representatives ofauthors, publishers, users, and librariansshould meet to review fully new preser-vation techniques and their copyright im-plications and should seek to develop a

common position for legislative action byCongress, taking into account the respectiveinterests of libraries and their patrons andof authors and publishers.

Adequate funding for library services.Proper recognition of the cost of creating

and disseminating protected works in oursociety requires concomitant understand-ing, at all levels of government, of the needfor adequate funding of publicly ownedlibraries in order to enable them to paytheir share of creation-dissemination costs.

Recomm endations to Amend the Copyright Act

Reproduction of out-of-print musical works.The Copyright Office recommends enact-ment of the proposal submitted by theMusic Library Association and the Music

Publishers' Association, either by amend-ment of section 10B(e] or by addition of anew paragraph (j ) to section 108, with con-sequential amendment of paragraph (h].The amendment would permit library re-production of an entire musical work (orsubstantial parts thereof) for private study,



mR'I'FTHEREG- OF COPYRIGIFIS, 1913

scholarship, or research following an un-successful, diligent search for the name andaddress of the copyright proprietor of the.musical work.

Umbrella statute. The Copyright Office rec-ommends favorable action by Congress onlegislation that would embody the principleof the so-called "umbrella statute," a pro-posal developed by an ad hoc task force oflibrarians and publishers and submitted bythe Association of American Publishers.The proposal would add a new section 511

to the Copyright Act, limiting copyrightowners to a single remedy in the form of a

reasonable copying fee, for copyright in-fringement of their scientific, technical.medical, or business periodicals or proceed-ings, if certain conditions are met by theuser of the work, including membership ina collective licensing arrangement, unlessthe work was entered in a qualified licens-ing system or qualified licensing program.The purpose of the umbrella statute is toencourage publisher and user participationin coIlective licensing arrangements. The

Copyright Office further recommends thatCongress require recordation with the officeof a document setting forth the basic termsand conditions of any qualified licensingprogram or qualified licensing system.

Clarification of the "108(a)(3) notice." TheCopyright Office recommends enactment ofa clarifying amendment to section 108(a)(3)as follows:

"(3) the reproduction or distribution ofthe work includes the notice of copyrightas provided in sections 401 and 402 ofthis title, if such notice appears on thecopy or phonorecord in a position author-ized by sections 401 (c) and 402(c), respec-tively, of this title."

Clarification that unpublished works are ex-

cluded from paragraphs (dl and (e) of sec-

tion 108. The Copyright Office recommendsan amendment to paragraphs (dl and (el ofsection 108 to make clear that unpublishedworks are not within the copying privilegesgranted therein.

Copies of the report may be purchased fromthe National Technical Information Service,U.S. Department of Commerce.

THE MANUFACTURING CLAUSE

This provision of the copyright law, a part ofthe U.S. statute in various forms since 1891,requires at present that certain nondramaticliterary works by American citizens be manu-factured in the United States or Canada inorder to enjoy full copyright protection. Pur-suant to the copyright law that took effect in1978, the provision was to expire on July 1,1982, but on June 30, 1982, Congress enacteda bill to retain it for another four years. Presi-dent Ronald Reagan vetoed the bill but onJuly 13 Congress overrode the veto, and thisin turn set the stage for another episode in the

long and acrimonious debate involving themanufacturing clause.

The European Economic Community PEC)has now formally complained that the exten-sion of the manufacturing clause in July 1982has resulted in violations of the General Agree-ment on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and thatthe European printing industry was injuredbecause it could not compete in the U.S.

market for material covered by the law. TheEEC estimates the amount of the injury at$250,000,000. Anthony P. Harrison, the Assist-ant Register of Copyrights, helped to present

the U.S. position to a formal GAIT panelformed to review this dispute.At the first pane1 meeting in September

1983, the EEC contended that, because of thehiatus in time between the date the manufac-turing clause was due to expire and theenactment date of its further extension, the



RP#)RT OFTHER E G I m OF COPYXUGW,1983

extension really amounted to new legislation

which would violate the spirit of SeveralGA'I'T provisions. New legislation would not

be protected by the GATT Protocol of Pro-visional Application (PPA), which allows lawscreating nontariff trade barriers to remain inforce if they were in effect on October 30.1947. The EEC also argued that the inclusionof Canada in the manufacturing clause was adiscriminatory act violating the "most favorednation" principle of the GATT provisions, in-

tended to afford equality of treatment to allparties to the GATT.

The United States responded that the manu-facturing clause is "existing legislation" withinthe meaning of the PPA and the U.S. legisla-

tive procedure which provides for a systemof presidential vetoes and veto override byCongress. The United States maintained thatthe action complained of in this instance wasa mere extension of existing legislation and

not the enactment of new legidation. Theposition of the United States is that the inclu-

sion of Canada in the manufacturing clauserepresents a liberalization of the effects of theclause in that it narrows the areas affected by

the manufacturing requirements by removingone country and that such a liberalization isallowed within the spirit of the GATT.

A second panel hearing will be held inNovember 1983 to review these questions and

others, along with economic data relevant tothe issues.

COPYRIGHT OFFICE REGULATIONS

POLICY ANNOUNCEMENTS

AND NOTICES OF INQUIRY

quests for full-term retention of deposit COP-

ies are to be made and granted, including thefees for this service. An interim regulation

implementing the provision for the full-term

retention was published on July 19, 1983. Theeffect of the regulation is to provide a mech-

anism for requesting retention of copyrightdeposits, to establish the conditions underwhich such requests are granted or denied,

and to fix the fee to be charged if the requestis granted.

Section 407(e) of the act authorizes the

Library of Congress to obtain copies of fixed,

unpublished transmission programs, either bymaking off-the-air copies or by demandingcopies from the owner of the right of trans-mission in the United States in the form of a

permanent transfer, a loan for copying, or asale. Section 408[b) permits the off-the-aircopies to be used for copyright registrationpurposes. On August 17, 1983. the CopyrightOffice issued a final regulation implementingsection 407(e) by providing a mechanism forthe Library to acquire copies of unpublishedtransmission programs in accordance withthe provisions of that section. The final regu-

lation takes into consideration comments andtestimony received in response to the noticeof proposed rule-making published on Febru-

ary 4, 1982. The final regulation embodies a

major change in the proposed regulation,which would have permitted the Library topresume that any television program trans-mitted to the public in the United States by anetwork or noncommercial educational broad-

cast station has been fixed but not published.The final regulation eliminates commercial

network programs from the presumption of

nonpublication.

Copyright Office Regulations Policy Announcements

Section 704(e) of the Copyright Act directs the The Copyright Office announced early in theRegister of Copyrights to issue regulations fiscal year that the statutory amendment pro-prescribing the conditions under which re- viding for a nonrefundable filing fee for copy-

6



REPORT OF THEREGISl'ER OF C O m H T S , 1983

right registrations was being implemented.Beginning on November 24, 1982, fees sub-mitted for all applications, whether original,renewal, or supplementary, were retained

whether or not copyright registration was ulti-mately made.

On December 9, 1982, the Copyright Office

announced a change in its procedure for pre-paring additional certificates of registrationfor works registered before January 1, 1978.

Heretofore, the office had prepared additionalcertificates by typing the facts of registrationfrom the official records onto printed certifi-cate forms. Under the announced new proce-

dure they are photoreproduced from theoriginal application, resulting in both a savingof time and elimination of the possibility oferrors in transcription.

After careful study of the space available,the projected growth in registrations, and theuse made of deposits, the Register of Copy-rights announced in March 1983 that he andthe Librarian of Congress had reached a POI-

icy determination, in accordance with theirstatutory authority, that it is no longer prac-ticable to retain published deposits more thanfive years from the date of deposit (excludingworks of the visual arts, which will be keptfor ten or more years, if possible, becausethey are more often the subject of litigationthan deposits in other classes).

In May 1983 the Copyright Office announcedthat documents sent to its Renewals andDocuments Section for recordation would befilmed upon receipt rather than after examina-tion and recordation, as had been the practice.The new procedure was adopted in order to

make the documents accessibIe to the publicmore quickly than in the past,

Notices of Inquiry

On October 20, 1982, the Copyright RoyaItyTribunal (CRT) adopted i ts final rule adjustingthe royalty rates for cable systems, following

the repeal by the Federal Communications

Commission (FCC] of its distant signal carriageand syndicated exclusivity restrictions. Afterthe publication of the tribunal's final rule inthe rate adjustment proceeding, the CopyrightOffice received letters from several cable sys-tem operators and their representatives re-questing interpretative rulings in connectionwith the application of the new 3.75 percentrate in specific instances. To assist the office

in responding to the various letters of inquiryand requests for interpretative rulings, a

Notice of Inquiry was published on February11, 1983, inviting comment on four general

issues. In a Statement of Views, published onMarch 30, 1983, the Copyright Office statedthat it had analyzed the comments that weresubmitted, the Copyright Act and its legisla-tive history, the CRT rate determination, andcertain former FCC regulations, and reachedthe conclusion that only a limited response tothe questions posed in the Notice of Inquirywas appropriate since the tribunal's rate ad-justment decision has been appealed to theU.S. Court of AppeaIs for the District ofColumbia. The office stated that it does notintend to take any steps to implement theOctober 20, 1982, rate adjustment pending a

final decision by the Court of Appeals.The Copyright Office published a Notice of

Inquiry on May 23, 1983, stating that it is re-viewing its deposit regulations with respect tothe deposit, under sections 407 and 408 of theCopyright Act, of computer programs and

other works which contain material referredto as "trade secrets." Owners of copyright in

works containing trade secrets, especially

owners of copyright in computer programs,

have expressed concern about public avail-

ability of materials deposited in the Copyright

Office, and have asked that the office consider

the possibility of special deposit provisions.

The notice was intended to elicit public com-

ment, views, and information to assist the

office in evaluating its present practices and inconsidering possible changes in its regulations.



REPORTOFTWEREGISI'ER OFCOFTRIGm1863

The response to the notice revealed great in-terest in the topic, and to ensure that inter-ested persons are given a full opportunity tosubmit views, on August 17, 1983, the Copy-right Office announced an extension of thecomment period. The office was continuing toreceive comments at the close of the fiscalyear.

LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

HomeRecording

Work continued on the difficult issues raisedby the growth of off-air home video and audiorecording of copyrighted works for privateuse. The focal point for discussions was thedecision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsin Universal City Studios, Inc.v. Sony Corp, ofAmerica, 859 F.2d 983 (9th Cir. 1B81), cert.granted, 457 U.S. 1118 (1982). The case hadbeen held over from the previous term of the

Supreme Court and was reargued on October3,1983. In January 1983, bills were introducedin both houses, H.R. 175 and S. 175, that wouldexempt certain video recordings from liabilityunder section 108 of the Copyright Act of1976, if such recordings were made for privatenoncommercial use. During the same period,the proposed Home Recording Act of 1983, S.31 and H.R. 1030, was introduced in both theHouse and the Senate. In addition to exempt-ing home recording for private use, these billswould establish a compulsory license mech-anism to compensate copyright owners. Roy-alties would be paid by manufacturers andimporters who distribute video and audio re-cording devices and media, at rates set byvoluntary negotiation or arbitration; the Copy-right Royalty Tribunal would then distributethe money to copyright owners. The Registerof Copyrights generally supported S. 31 in histestimony on October 25, 1983, before the

Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, andTrademarks of the Senate Committee on theJudiciary. At the end of the fiscal year theCopyright Office had not testified on the Housebills.

Rental, Leare, or Lending ofMotion Pictures andOtherAudiovirual WorkAsWell As Sou~ldRecordings

The rental, lease, or lending for purposes of

direct or indirect commercial advantage ofmotion pictures and other audiovisual worksas well as sound recordings was the subject ofbills introduced in the Senate, S. 32 and S. 33,and the House of Representatives, H.R. 1027and H.R. 029, in the first session of the 98thCongress. The bills would amend section109[a] of the Copyright Act, known as the"first sale" provision, to require authorizationby the copyright owner before the works inquestion could be rented, leased, or lent on acommercial basis. The Register of Copyrightstestified at a hearing on S. 32 and S. 33 that

was held on April 29, 1983, before the SenateSubcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, andTrademarks. The proposed audio record rent-al amendment, S. 32, was reported from theSenate Committee on the Judiciary on June 23,1983. S. Rep. No. 98-162, 98th Cong., 1st Sess.(1983). S. 32 passed the Senate on June 28,

1983, and was referred to the House JudiciaryCommittee.

Cable Television

Various bills were introduced in the 98th Con-gress to amend the copyright law with respectto the compulsory license for secondary trans-missions by cable systems. Bills introduced inthe Senate, 6. 1270 on May 12, 1983, and inthe House, H.R. 419 on June 27,1983, wouldamend the Copyright Act with respect to theroyalty rates applicable to the carriage of



REFORT OF THEREGISI'EROFCOPYRIGHTS, 1963

what is termed a "national cable broadcastnetwork." The bills also propose certainchanges in the Copyright Royalty Tribunal.Another bill, H.R. 2902, introduced in theHouse on May 4, 1983, would amend theCopyright Act to provide that certain adjust-ments in royalty rates would not apply to the

first three distant independent television wig-nals carried by any cable system. Efforts alsocontinued to improve the compulsory licensesystem established under section 111 of theact. H.R. 1388 was introduced by Rep. BarneyFrank and Rep. Harold S. Sawyer on February

10, 1983, that would alter considerably thetext of section 111.With certain specific ex-emptions, secondary transmissions to the pub-lic of primary transmissions embodying aperformance or display of a copyrighted workwould be subject to full liability. In the inter-est of remedying the imbalance in the protec-tion of copyrighted works retransmitted byforeign cable systems, S. 736 was introducedby Sen. Patrick J. Leahy in March 1883. Thebill would provide that a nonresident foreignnational not be compensated under the U.S.cable provisions unless such claimant's coun-try compensates United States citizens for

retransmission of their works.

Protection of Semiconductor Chipr andMash

In the last days of the 97th Congress, Sen.Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., and Rep. DonEdwards introduced S. 3117 and H.R. 7207,respectively, tha t would establish mask worksas a new category of copyrightable subjectmatter. With a few changes, the proposedsemiconductor chip legislation was reintro-duced in the 98th Congress in both the Senate,S. 1201, and the House, H.R. 1028. The general

counsel of the Copyright Office, Dorothy M.Schrader, testified at a hearing on the Senatebill on May 19,1983.

Copyright Misure and the Antftrurt Lawr

Several bills were introduced in the 98th Con-

gress to promote research and development,encourage innovation, and stimulate trade.Certain of these bills, S. 1841 and H.R. 3878,would also amend the antitrust, patent, andcopyright laws. Among other measures, theproposed National Productivity and Innova-tion Act of 1983 would amend the CopyrightAct to modify the application of the doctrine

of copyright misuse in the licensing of copy-

righted works. The general counsel teetifiedon S. 1841 at a hearing before the Senate Com-mittee on the Judiciary on October 26, 1983.

New Technology and Copyright

The challenges to the copyright system pre-sented by the rapid advances in technologyhave led to a reassessment of the copyrightlaw by the House Judiciary Subcommittee onCourts, Civil Liberties, and the Administrationof Justice. Under the chairmanship of Rep.Robert W. Kastenmeier, the subcommitteeheld hearings on July 20 and 21,1983, to focuson the technological developments that maybe anticipated and the impact such changesmay have on the copyright system.

Other LegirlativeActivities

Bills were introduced in the Senate, S. 1734,and the House, H.R. 4010, to amend section116 of the Copyright Act with respect to pub-lic performances of nondramatic musicalworks by means of coin-operated phonorec-ord players. The proposed National HeritageResource Act of 1983, H.R. 1285 and S. 427,would amend the Internal Revenue Code withrespect to charitable contributions of certainliterary, musical, or artistic compositions. TheCaribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, S.

544 and H.R. 2769, contained limitations relat-ing to the unauthorized broadcast of works ofU.S. copyright owners; this legislation passedthe Congress and was signed by the President



REPORTOF THER E C i I m OF C O F ' Y W C ~ . 983

on August 5 , 1983. H.R. 1521, introduced inthe House on February 17,1983, would estab-lish a type of moral right for authors of pic-torial, graphic. or sculptural works. On May11, 1983, Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead introducedH.R. 2985, which would amend the copyrightlaw to provide for protection of ornamentaldesigns of useful articles. H.R. 1674 and H.R.2975, introduced in February and May 1983,respectively, would amend section 110 of theact to exempt certain performances or dis-plays of copyrighted works.

JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS

There were a number of significant cases in

the last fiscal year on the question of the copy-rightability of certain computer programs. InApple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International,hc., 562 F.Supp. 775 (C.D. Calif. 1983), theprimary copyright issue was whether allcomputer programs or only limited types ofcomputer programs are copyrightable. The de-fendant claimed that those programs which

are integral to the operation of the machineand do not produce visual communicationswith the use of the machine are not copyright-able. The court said that any doubt as towhether the Copyright Act protects computerprograms of all types, however fixed, is re-

moved by examining the legislative history ofthe 1980 amendment to the act ; that the rec-ommendations of the National Commission onNew Technological Uses of Copyrighted

Works, which were accepted by Congress andembodied in the Copyright Act by the 1980amendment, said there should be no distinc-tion made "between programs which are usedin the production of further copyrightedworks and those which are not"; and that itmust follow, therefore, that Congress did notintend to make any distinction between pro-grams which are used in the production offurther copyrighted works and those which

embody a system for the operation of a ma-chine. In this case the court found that Applesought not to protect ideas (i.e., making themachine perform particular functions), butrather to protect their particular expression ofthose ideas in the form of specific programs.

The copyrightability of an "operating pro-gram" was also an issue in H u b ~ o ata Prod-

ucts Corp. v. Management Assistance Inc.,219 USPQ 450 (D. Idaho 1983). ManagementAssistance Inc. (MAI) sells an operating pro-gram for use in machines it manufactures, Itmarkets a number of different versions of itsoperating program, each of which has differ-ent capacities or capabilities. These limita-tions are programmed into the basic operatingprogram. Its fee for the purchase of the op-erating program is based on the capability ofthe particular program purchased. Hubcodeveloped a certain software procedure whichit markets and which has the effect of upgrad-ing the capability of MAI's operating programby bypassing or neutralizing the limitationcodes put into the program by MAI. The issuein this case was the copyrightability of MAI'soperating program and, if copyrightable,whether Hubco copied from MAI's program

or independently created the program whichserves to upgrade MAI's program. In decidingMAI's motion for a preliminary injunction thecourt found that as a matter of law MAI'soperating program is proper subject matter

for copyright protection. On the issue of copy-ing the court found a probability of success

on MAI's charge that Hubco copied at leastpart of its operating program.

In Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Com-puter Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 19831, the

district court had refused to issue a prelim-

inary injunction to Apple based upon its

doubts that Apple's computer programs werecopyrightable. The works involved are in ob-ject code form stored on Read Only Memory

(ROM) chips or on disks. All of the workswere operating programs. The court in its

analysis distinguished between operating pro-



REPORTOF THEREGISIZR OFCOPYRIGHTS. 1983

grams, which are generally internal to thecomputer and designed only to facilitate theoperation of an application program, and ap-plication programs which have a specific task,

chosen by the user, such as to maintain rec-ords, perform certain calculations, or displaygraphic images. The court found that withouta full trial it could not determine the copyright-ability of plaintiff's operating programs. Itappeared to the court that the operating pro-grams were an essential part of the machine,i.e., mechanical devices which make the ma-chine work and make it possible for the

machine to use application programs, andthat, if they were mechanical devices whichare engaged in a computer to become an es-sential part of the mechanical process, theycannot be considered " works of authorship"under the copyright law.

The Court of Appeals reversed the denialof the preliminary injunction and remandedthe case to the district court. In its opinionthe court stated that all computer programs,

whether operating programs or applicationprograms, in object code or in source code,are protectible by copyright. In answer to the

district court's doubt that an object code,which is only machine readable, as distin-guished from a source code, which is capableof being read by a human being, may not bethe proper subject matter of copyright, theCourt of Appeals cited its decision in Williams

Electronics, Inc. v. Artic International, Inc..

685 F.2d 870 [ad Cir. 1982). In the Williams

case the court said the answer to the questionis in the words of the statute itself, i.e., sec-tion 102[a] of the Copyright Act, which ex-tends copyright to works in any tangiblemedium of expression "from which they can

be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise com-municated, either directly or with the aid ofa machine or device." Further, the courtpointed out that the 1980 amendment definesa computer program as "a set of statements or

instructions to be used directly or indirectlyin a computer in order to bring about a certain

result." On the question of the copyrightabil-ity of a computer program embodied in aROM, the court again cited the opinion inWilliams, which held that the statutory re-quirement of "fixation" is satisfied through theembodiment of the expression in the ROMdevices.

Franklin's main argument was that an oper-ating system program is a process, a system,or a method of operation and hence is uncopy-rightable. The court found that Apple doesnot seek to copyright the method which in-structs the computer to perform its operating

functions but only the instructions them-selves. The court stated that the method wouldbe protected, if at all, by the patent law. Italso found that Franklin's attack on operatingsystem programs as methods or processesseems inconsistent with its concession thatapplication programs are an appropriate sub-ject of copyright. Both types of programsinstruct the computer to do something. There-fore, according to the court, it should make no

difference for purposes of copyright whetherthese instructions tell the computer to helpprepare an income tax return (the task of an

application program] or to translate a high-level language program from source code intoits binary language object code form (the taskof an operating system program). The courtindicated that, since it is only the instructionswhich are protected, a "process" is no moreinvolved because the instructions in an oper-

ating system program may be used to activate

the operation of the computer than it wouldbe if instructions were written in ordinaryEnglish in a manual which described the nec-essary steps to activate an intricate, compli-cated machine. There is thus, in the court's

view, no reason to afford any less copyrightprotection to the instructions in an operatingsystem program than to the instructions in an

application program. The court reasoned thatperhaps the most important factor leading to a

rejection of Franklin's argument is that thestatutory definition of a computer program is



REPORTOFTHBRSISISROF- 1903

a set of instructions to be used in a computerin order to bring about a certain resdt, andthat the statute makes no distinction betweenapplication programs and operating programs.The court stated that Franklin had pointed tono decision which adopted the distinction itsought to make.

An additional Franklin argument was thatin the case of an operating computer program,the "idea" and the "expression" of the ideamerge, thus making copyright unavailable.The rule stated by the court is that, if othermethods of expressing the same idea are notforeclosed, as a practical matter there is nomerger of the idea with the expression of theidea but that copyright protection will not begiven to a form of expression necessarily dic-tated by the underlying subject matter. Sincethe district court made no finding as towhether some or all of Apple's operating pro-grams represent the only means of expressingthe idea underlying them, that issue was re-manded to the district court.

Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic International, Inc.,704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir. 19831, cert. deniedsub nom. Artic International, Inc. v. MidwayMfg. CO., NO. 82-1992, 52 U.S.L.W. 3227, 3238

(U.S. Oct. 3, 19831, presented two interestingissues: whether a computer program em-bodied in a printed circuit board is copyright-able and whether a speeded-up version of avideo game is an infringement of the originalcopyright. The court answered both questionsaffirmatively. On the first point, it held thatthe fact that a computer program is embodiedin a printed circuit board which may be pat-entable does not destroy the program's copy-rightability any more than would recording theimages on rolls of celluloid film. On the sec-ond issue, it was not alleged that defendant

copied any of plaintiff's program, but ratherthat he designed an original printed circuitboard which is intended to replace one of theprinted circuit boards in the plaintiff's ma-chine, the effect of which is to speed up theaction of the images produced on the screen

of the machine. The court held that thespeeded-up version of the video game con-stituted an infringement of the copyrightedprogram inasmuch as it was an unauthorizedderivative adaptation of the plaintiff's originalvideo game.

In Midway Mfg. Co. v. Strohon, 564 F. Supp.741 [N.D. Ill. 19831, the defendants manufac-tured a modification kit for use in PAC-MANgame machines which had the effect of pro-ducing all new graphics for a maze gamewhich is somewhat similar to PAC-MAN butplays a t a higher level of difficulty. Midwaymade two copyright registrations for PAC-MAN, one for the audiovisual display and onefor the computer program which embodies theoperating instructions to the machine. Sincethe defendant created new graphics for themodified game, the court found there was noinfringement of the audiovisual work. Thedefendant argued that the audiovisual displayand the computer program which directs playare so intertwined as to preclude considera-tion of the computer program as a separatelycopyrightable item. The court found that sinceMidway registered copyright claims in boththe audiovisual display and the underlying

computer program, the prima facie validity ofboth copyrights is established. The courtstated that the computer program is a distinctcreation as shown by the fact that it is pos-sible to create a completely different computerprogram and still infringe the copyright in theaudiovisual material, and that the skill, in-genuity, and effort required to design thecomputer program are "altogether differentfrom the process of conceiving and designingthe distinctive PAC-MAN characters." Thecourt held that the computer program con-nected with a video game is protectibIe by

copyright separately from the copyright in theaudiovisual work. In comparing the programsit was shown that 97 percent of the sequencinginstructions in Strohon's program were similarto Midway's. The court concluded that sincethe program could have been written in many



REPORT OFTHEREGISTER OFCOPYRIGHTS, lg83

different ways without substantial alteration

of the way the game plays, the fact that de-fendant's program is nearly identical to plain-

tiff's copyrighted program indicates copying.The long-awaited Supreme Court decision

in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp.of America, 659 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981), cert.granted, 457 U.S. 1116 (1982), was further de-layed when the Supreme Court held the caseover and scheduled it for rehearing on Octo-ber 3, 1983, the first day of the new term. Inthis case the owners of copyrighted motionpictures and other audiovisual materialbrought an infringement action, based on theoff-air home videotaping for private use oftelevision programs embodying their works.The action was brought against the manufac-turers, distributors, and retail vendors of thevideocassette recorders used to tape theworks, and against an individual who re-corded off-air in his home. The district courtheld for the defendants. In reversing that de-cision, the Court of Appeals concentrated onthree main issues: Firstly, did the Congressintend to create a blanket exemption for homevideo recording from the general rights granted

copyright owners in the Copyright Act? Sec-ondly, if home video recording is not exemptfrom protection, does the doctrine of fair useapply? Lastly, if home video recording is

neither exempt nor a fair use, are the cor-porate defendants who manufacture and sellhome video recorders liable for contributorycopyright infringement? The Court of Appeals

held that Congress did not intend to create a

blanket exemption for home video recordina

and that such use was not a fair use. In addi-

tion, the corporate defendants were held liable

for contributory infringement on the ground

that videotape recorders are manufactured,advertised, and sold for the primary purpose

of reproducing television programming, vir-tually all of which is copyrighted.

Nova Stylings, Inc. v. Ladd, 695 F.2d 1179

(9th Cir. 19831, involved the question of the

remedy available to copyright applicants when

registration is refused. The plaintiff's action in

the nature of mandamus involved the Regis-ter's refusal to register claims to copyright in

ten jewelry designs. The Register moved fordismissal of the action for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction, arguing that section 411[a]

of the copyright statute provides the plaintiffin an infringement action an adequate remedyat law for review of the refusal of the Copy-right Office to register its claims to copyright.The district court granted the government'srequest to dismiss for lack of subject matterjurisdiction. The Court of Appeals upheld thelower court's decision giving the followingreasons: firstly, that mandamus is an extraor-dinary remedy and that it is appropriate onlywhen the plaintiff's claim is clear and certainand the duty of the office is ministerial and soplainly described as to be free from doubt; andsecondly, that an adequate alternative statu-tory mode of remedy is available. The courtheld specifically that because of the remedyprovided in section 411 (a) of the copyright lawan action in the nature of mandamus is notavailable to compel registration, a t least whereinfringement has allegedly occurred. On the

question of whether mandamus is available toreview the refusal to register before an in-fringement has occurred, the court held thatanother mode of redress is provided in section701(d), which expressly makes all actionstaken by the Register reviewable under the pro-visions of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Nova Stylings v. Midas Creations, Inc. and

David Ladd, Civ. No. 80-3820 (C.D. Cal. 1980),involves two jewelry designs that were al-

legedly infringed. The Register was made a

party in order to compel registration if the

plaintiff should prevail. On November 19,

1981, the court orally stated that it wouldgrant the Copyright Office's motion for sum-

mary judgment. As of the end of this fiscal

year, it has not issued a written opinion.In Norris Industries, Inc. v. International

Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 696 F.2d 918(11th Cir. 19831, cert. denied, 52 U.S.L.W.238



(u.s. act. 3, 19831 [No. 82-18801, the COPY-right Office had refused registration of a claimto copyright in plaintiff's automobile wheel

cover design on the grounds that it was a use-ful article which did not contain separable

sculptural features which could be considereda copyrightable pictorial, graphic, or sculp-

tural work. The Copyright Office entered thecase to clarify its position on the registrabilityof plaintiff's wheel cover design. After oralargument, the district court granted the Copy-right Office's motion for summary judgment.The district court declared the plaintiff's copy-rights invalid as a matter of law. In affirmingthe holding, the Court of Appeals found that

the district court properly deferred to theexpertise of the Register of Copyrights. The

court found no error in the district court'sreliance on the Register's opinion that Norris'swheel covers are useful articles as that termis used in the Copyright Act, and that theycontain no separable pictorial, graphic, orsculptural features that would qualify for copy-right protection.

In National Conference of Bar Examiners v.

Multistate Legal Studies, Inc., 692 F.2d 478

(7th Cir. 19821, cert. denied sub. nom. Multi-

state Legal Studies, Inc. v. Ladd, 52 U.S.L.W.3238 (U.S. Oct. 3, 19831 (No. 82-18851, the de-

fendant had questioned the validity of plain-

tiff's registration for its secure tests, allegingthat the Copyright Office regulation on thedeposit for secure tests, 37 C.F.R. 202.20, wasinconsistent with the statute. The district

court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim

and the defendant appealed. The Court of

Appeals found from its reading of the legisla-

tive history of the Copyright Act that the act

was intended to invest broad authority in the

Register of Copyrights to fashion a workable

system of registration and deposit of copy-

righted works, and that it was intended toprovide for "administrative flexibility." Con-

sequently, the Court of Appeals agreed withthe district court's determination that author-ity for the secure test regulation can be found

in the statute.In The Authors League of America, Inc. v.

Ladd, No. 82 Civ. 5731 [S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30,19821, the plaintiffs questioned the constitu-

tionality, under the First and Fifth Amend-ments to the U.S. Constitution, of the "manu-

facturing clause" of the copyright law. This

action was described in last year's annualreport. As the fiscal year ended, the case was

still pending, but there had been no furtheraction by the court.

In Encyclopaedia Britannica EducationalCorp. v. Crooks, 542 F. Supp. 1156 (W.D.N.Y.19821, the Board of Educational Services of

Erie County, New York (BOCES], had video-

taped the plaintiff's copyrighted works fromthe television airwaves, maintained a library

of the videotaped works, and made copies ofthe tapes for classroom use. In its decision,the court, after finding that the acts of BOCESwere harmful to plaintiff and that the defenseof nonprofit use was not well-founded, is-sued a permanent injunction prohibitingfuture copying. Thereafter, the defendantsfiled a motion to amend the injunction toallow temporary videotape copying and use of

plaintiff's work on the theory that some lim-

ited or temporary use of plaintiff's televisedworks might be considered a fair use, but in

558 F. Supp. 1247 (W.D.N.Y. 1983), the court

refused to amend the permanent injunction to

allow temporary use of plaintiff's work, point-

ing out that all of plaintiff's works are avail-

able for rental or lease for short- or long-termperiods; that there are many kinds of licensing

agreements permitting educational institu-

tions to duplicate plaintiff's works and that

these licensing agreements have been previ-

ously described in detail; and that the cumu-

lative effect of temporary videotaping would

tend to diminish or prejudice the potential

short-term lease or rental market for theseworks.

Four cases of interest were reported that

considered the issue of the omission of thecopyright notice from published copies. In



REPORT OF THERECISrWOFCOPYRIGHTS, 1983

Gemveto Jewelry Co. v. Jeff Cooper, Inc., 568F. Supp. 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), three of plain-tiff's jewelry designs were refused registrationby the Copyright Office for lack of sculpturalauthorship. After the rejection, plaintiff's at-torney asked to withdraw the applications,stating that they were submitted in error sincethe works were first published without copy-right notice. Eight months later the same threeworks were again submitted for registrationwith no reference to the earlier refusal to reg-ister, and they were again refused registration

for lack of sculptural authorship. When actionwas brought against an alleged infringer, thecourt said that the plaintiff's burden to provecopyrightability was "heavy" since the deter-mination of the Copyright Office to refuseregistration is entitled to "considerable"weight especially where the office rejected theclaims on two separate occasions for the samereason, that is, "lack of sculptural authorshipnecessary to sustain a claim." The court wenton to say that the decision to register an ar-ticle rests within the sound discretion of theRegister of Copyrights and that the scope ofjudicial review is limited to whether the deci-

sion was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse ofdiscretion, or otherwise not in accordancewith law."

However, the court felt that it did not needto decide the question of the copyrightabilityof plaintiff's jewelry designs, since there wasa failure to comply with the copyright noticeprovisions. The court said that, although theplaintiff was aware of the absence of copy-right notice on the copies at least at the time itattempted to withdraw the applications andperhaps earlier, it was at least several monthsafter the attempt was made to withdraw the

applications before the plaintiff added noticesin an attempt to correct the original omissionof notice. Under these circumstances the courtheld that the plaintiff did not make a "reason-able effort" as required under section 405 (a)(2)of the Copyright Act to add a notice to allcopies distributed to the public in the United

States after the omission of notice wasdiscovered.

Plaintiff's failure to plead that he attemptedto add notices after he had become aware thatthey were missing from some 300-500 of 1,335published copies resulted in his failure to pre-vail in King v. Burnett, Copr. L. Rptr [CCH]a25,489, (D.D.C., Sept. 29,1982). The court saidthat the record is devoid of any indication thatthe plaintiff made a reasonable effort to addnotices.

In Beacon Looms, Inc. v. Lichtenberg 6.Co.,

Inc., 552F.

Supp. 1305 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), plaintiffdeliberately omitted the copyright notice frompublished copies. After infringement, plaintiffcompleted registration of the claim to copy-right and sent labels bearing the copyrightnotice to distributors to be affixed to the copiesnot yet distributed to the public. The court heldthat the clear language of the statute indicatesthat the saving clause in section 405(a)(2) wasnot intended to apply to deliberate omission ofnotice. The court stated: "While there can beno rule against resort to legislative history toaid construction of meaning of words, how-ever clear the words may appear on superficial

examination, it is equally clear that plain read-ing of an unambiguous statute cannot beeschewed in favor of a contrary reading, sug-gested only by legislative history and not bythe text itself."

In Shapiro 6 Son Bedspread Corp. v. RoyalMills Associates, 568 F. Supp. 972 [S.D.N.Y.1983], plaintiff first distributed copies of itsbedspread without a permanently attachednotice of copyright. The copies were distrib-uted in a sealed plastic package which alsocontained an insert reading "Design Copy-right." The claim to copyright was registered

in the Copyright Office and permanent noticesadded afte r large numbers of copies had al-ready been sold to the public. The court saidthat a certificate of registration is not an irre-buttable presumption of copyright validityand is not prima facie evidence that the noticerequirement has been met. Plaintiff made no



REPORT OF THEREG- OF OOWRIGHTS.1963

effort to ascertain the number of copies al-ready in the hands of distributors with im-proper notices and did not make any effort toadd correct notices to those copies before theywere distributed to the consumers. However,plaintiff argued that the defective notices con-stituted a "reasonable effort" to place noticeson all copies and that the insert was an actualnotice of a claim to copyright. The court heldthat plaintiff did not make a "reasonable ef-fort" to add an adequate notice to all copiesdistributed to the public once it discoveredthat its original notices were defective. Ab-sent such showing, the court found that omis-sion of notice is not excused by section 405(a)of the copyright law.

The right of a state to claim copyright in itsrevised statutes was the issue in State ofGeorgia v. The Harrison Company, 548 F.Supp. 110 (N.D. a. 1982). The Michie Com-pany was given a contract by the State ofGeorgia to codify its statutes. Michie did so un-der guidelines supplied by a state commission.The codification involved more than mere cut-ting and pasting of existing statutes. Michie

found duplicate statutes, inconsistent statutes,and gaps in various statutes, and drafted rec-ommended changes in the statutes to makethem consistent and complete. The changeswere enacted by the Georgia legislature. In ad-dition, Michie edited, compiled, numbered, anddid other editorial work on the code. In denyingthe state's claim to copyright in the codificationof the statutes, the court held that the publicmust have free access to state laws unham-pered by any claim of copyright.

In MSR Imports, Inc. v . R.E. GreenspanCo., Copr. L. Rptr. (CCH) (25,571 (E.D. a.,

April 27, 1983), the defendant copied plain-tiff's cast-iron Coke wagon sculpture and as-serted that plaintiff was not entitled to claimcopyright in it. The defendant contended thatthe author of the work was a factory in Tai-wan whose employees executed the sculptureand that there was no transfer of copyright toMSR. The idea for the Coke wagon sculpture

originated with the president of MSR, whofound a public domain sculpture of a horse-drawn beer wagon which he used as a modeland engaged a free-lance artist to make draw-ings of proposed changes in the sculpture.MSR's president sent the sculpture, drawings,and detailed instructions for sculptural altera-tions of the model to the manufacturer inTaiwan, whose employees created the sculp-ture that was finally produced in copies andimported into the United States with a copy-right notice in the name of MSR. At issue wasthe question whether MSR could be consid-ered the author of the sculpture by virtue ofthe employment for hire of its president, andtherefore also the owner of the copyright. Thecourt found that MSR's president did morethan merely originate the idea for the Cokewagon; he provided explicit and detailed in-structions for its manufacture; and theseinstructions constituted the necessary expres-sion of the idea for the wagon. The courtstated that the manufacturer did not have theslightest discretion to change the specifica-tions it was given nor could it provide any

creativity to the product and that any modifi-cation of the original specifications had to beapproved by MSR. The court found that thefree-lance artist and the Taiwan manufacturercontributed no originality to the work andthat, therefore, MSR was the sole author andcopyright owner and no transfer of copyrightwas needed.

In addition to the sale and rental of video-tapes, the defendant in Columbia PicturesIndustries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, lnc., 568 F.Supp. 494 (W.D. Pa. 1983), also ran a "show-case" operation. The defendant provided

rooms in the back of i ts store where a cus-tomer alone, or with others he had invited,could view a videotape he or she had rented.The issue was whether the customers' viewingof the rental tapes in a room provided by thedefendant amounted to a "public perform-ance." The court held that it did, reasoningthat the composition of the audience, even



REPORT OFTHEREGISTER OFCOPYRIGHTS,1983

though limited by the room size to four or sixpersons, was of a public nature and thatshowcasing the plaintiff's motion pictures re-sults in repeated public performances.

Financial Information v. Moody's, Copr.L. Rptr. (CCH] (125,534 (S.D.N.Y., May 23,19831, involves the question of the need formultiple registrations to cover the updating ofdata bases. The plaintiff publishes daily fromten to twelve cards providing information onbonds called for redemption. The plaintiff alsopublishes a yearly cumulative volume of in-formation taken from its daily cards. Each of

the cards and the cumulative volume containnotices of copyright. The defendant publishescompeting information at least some of whichis gathered from plaintiff's daily cards. Thedefendant conceded that the yearly cumula-tive volume is a copyrightable compilation.The defendant's defense against the charge ofcopyright infringement of the individual dailycards was based on several grounds: that thedaily data are facts and therefore not copy-rightable and that such daily data are notcompilations and therefore not copyrightableas such. The absence of registration for the

daily cards constituted an additional defense.An annual registration was made in the cumu-lative volume. The court did not decide thequestion of the copyrightability of the dailycards, but reasoned that to accord copyrightprotection to the annual compilation and todeny it to each daily component would negatethe value of the protection accorded the yearlycompilation. On the question of the absenceof registration for the daily cards the courtreasoned that since the Copyright Act author-izes the Register of Copyrights to adopt regu-lations permitting a single registration for a

group of related works, although regulationswere not adopted, the cards were relatedworks covered by the registration for theannual compilations.

In Harper B Row, Publishers, Inc. v. NationEnterprises, 557 F. Supp. 1067 (S.D.N.Y. 19831,the defendant received an unauthorized copy

of former President Gerald Ford's memoirs, ATime to Heal, which was used by one of itseditors to prepare an article that was pub-lished in the magazine. The article consistedlargely of a paraphrase of the language ofFord and other public figures together withsome verbatim quotations. The material usedwas taken from scattered parts of the mem-oirs. The defendant's early unauthorized pub-lication of parts of the memoirs resulted inthe loss of a publishing contract betweenplaintiff and Time magazine. The defendantclaimed that its publication was a fair use on

the grounds that the revelation of facts andthe President's thoughts in the memoirs sur-rounding Richard Nixon's pardon were a"hot" news item which it could report with-out incurring liability. The district court heldthat the defendant's editor was incorrect inbelieving that the revelations in the memoirswere a "hot" news item, since most of them hadbeen published earlier in other sources. Thedefendant raised the defense that most of thematerial in the memoirs was uncopyrightable,since it consisted of historical facts, texts ofgovernment memoranda, and quoted conver-

sations of persons other than Ford. The courtheld that it was not the individual facts andmemoranda which were copyrightable, butthat it was their totality collected together inFord's reflections that was protected by copy-right and that an infringement had occurred.

Later in the year the Court of Appeals re-versed the district court in Harper & Row,Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, Nos.83-7277 and 83-7327 (2d Cir., Nov. 17, 1983).The court expressed the need to construe theconcept of copyrightability in accord withFirst Amendment freedoms since the memoirs

described political events of major signifi-cance, involving a former President. WhereFirst Amendment concerns are involved, thecourt continued, the confines of copyrightableexpression must be construed very narrowly.The issue was whether the memoirs containany expression which is protected by copy-



REPORTOF THE REGISTEROF C O m C m , 083

right and whether that expression was appro-priated by the defendant. The court said thatan author's expression exists in differentmodes. One mode is his overall arrangementof facts, i.e., the structure he chooses for thework as a whole. The court noted that the

defendant drew only upon scattered parts ofthe memoirs and not the total entity with itsunique and protected mosaic. A second ex-pressive mode is the author's chosen language,

which the plaintiff alleges was appropriated bythe defendant by virtue of its use of short seg-ments of verbatim quotation and liberal use ofparaphrasing. The court rejected the argumentthat "paraphrasings of disparate facts such asthose found in this case constitute an infringe-ment of copyrightable material." It said that ifThe Nation had taken all of the book or all ofa chapter and merely changed the languagehere and there, such a paraphrase would notprotect it from infringement. In this case, TheNation drew on scattered pieces of informa-tion from different chapters and then de-scribed that information in its own words.The court continued, saying that paraphrase

concerns the very essence of news and of his-

tory and in such works courts have carefullyconfined the concept "expression" to its bar-est elements-the ordering and choice of thewords themselves. The court found that thecopyrighted quotations are neither superflu-ous nor excessive for the article's purpose

and that this very limited use of copyrighted

words is not sufficient "to supersede the use

of the original work." The court concluded

that, "Where information concerning impor-

tant matters of state is accompanied by a

minimal borrowing of expression, the eco-

nomic impact of which is dubious at best, the

copyright holder's monopoly must not be per-mitted to prevail over a journalist's commu-

nication."

In Marcus v. Rowley, 095F. 2d 1171 (9th Cir.

19831, the defendant admitted copying eleven

pages of pIaintiffls twenty-four-page cookbook

for incorporation into a "learning activity

package" prepared for classroom use. The de-fendant claimed a fair use privilege because

the material was copied for a nonprofit educa-

tional use. The court held that a finding ofnonprofit educational purpose does not auto-matically compel a finding of fair use and that

in this case both the plaintiff's and the de-

fendant's works served the same function;namely, to teach cake decorating. In additionthe court found that the quantity and quality

of the material taken in relation to the workas a whole precluded a finding of fair use. Thecourt found no monetary loss on the part ofthe plaintiff, but said that the mere absence ofmeasurable pecuniary damages does not re-

quire a finding of fair use.

In National Cable Television Association v.

Copyright Royalty Tribunal, Copr. L. Rptr.(CCH) 1125,477 (D.C. Cir., Dec. 14, 19821,the Court of Appeals refused to grant a motionfor expedited summary reversal of the districtcourt's refusal to stay an increase of cabletelevision royalty rates. The increase had beenordered by the Copyright Royalty Tribunalbecause, in July 1980, the Federal Communica-

tions Commission had revoked its regulations

limiting the number of distant signals a cablesystem could distribute to its subscribers and

deleting the rule giving television stationsexclusive rights over syndicated programs.The case was argued on its merits late in thefiscal year and no decision had been an-nounced at year's end.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

During fiscal 1984 the international copyrightcommunity examined a number of questions,arising under the Berne and Universal Copy-right Conventions, which have drawn the at-tention of 1egisIatures in many countries,

including our own. In addition to subjectssuch as cable television, broadcast and book

piracy, and protection of computer software,





REPORTOFTHER W : m OFCOPYRIGHTS, 1B83

statutory, voluntary licensing arrangementsbetween rights holders and institutions sen-ing the handicapped?A striking shortcoming of the Working

Group's recommendations concerns develop-ing countries. Although the group appeared torecognize the financial and infrastnlcturalproblems facing the Third World, the alterna-tives proposed are economically feasible onlyfor fairly industrialized societies. The extentto which institutions serving the handicappedin developed states should be encouraged andpermitted to share materials for the handi-

capped with their foreign counterparts, par-ticularly in the Third World, should be ad-dressed.

The report of the Working Group will bediscussed at the December 1983 meetings ofthe UCC's Intergovernmental Committee andthe Berne Convention Executive Committee.

The problem of commercial piracy of mo-tion pictures. broadcasts, records, and bookshas reached nearly alarming proportionsthroughout the world. In a sense, this phe-nomenon is due to the rapid and widedissemination of low-cost technologies ofreproduction and performance of protectedworks. Whole national markets for sound re-cordings have sprung up wherever low-costpersonal audiocassette players are available.The middle classes of advanced developingnations are rapidly becoming a major marketfor videocassette decks. In broad terms, theseare very positive developments; music and thevisual arts are being brought to people all overthe globe, where only limited access to thesesorts of works was available a decade ago.But the consumer's appetite for diverse cul-tural and intellectual materials has created aclass of commercial predators whose activi-ties cost composers, performers, producers,and artists large sums in lost revenues. Curb-ing piracy without depriving readers andaudiences of low-cost access to the globalrepertory of creative works is the largestsingle problem in world copyright today. It

challenges the political will of legislators andenforcement officials everywhere; it posesvexing problems of consumer morality; and itintroduces, above all, the need for careful anddifficult reassessment by copyright-exportingindustries of trade practices and licensingarrangements which grew up in an earlier andsimpler era.

In March of 1981 WIPO had held a World-wide Forum on the Piracy of Sound andAudiovisual Recordings-the first such globalconference. In March 1883WIPO held a secondconference at its Geneva headquarters. The

Worldwide Forum on the Piracy of Broadcastsand the Printed Word, like its predecessor,attracted a large and diverse group of at-tendees from all points on the globe. Copy-right owners, performers' groups, copyrightofficials from the Third World, and law en-forcement specialists exchanged views andinformation on the nature, scope, causes, andconsequences of copyright piracy. A largenumber of papers were presented, detailingthe nature and extent of broadcast and bookpiracy as well as the impact of piracy on thecosts of information to consumers everywhere.

The discussion of broadcast piracy heldparticular interest for the United States, wherethese practices have received recent publicattention, mostly in the Caribbean region. It iswell known that, with the growth of domesticpay-TV services distributed by satellite, aproblem has arisen over the unauthorized in-terception and redistribution of these valuablesignals in the Caribbean-an area well withinthe "footprint" of our satellite systems.

Unauthorized rebroadcasting of Home BoxOffice (HBO) and other signals by a Jamaicanbroadcasting organization triggered strong

United States industry protests. These protestswere heard by the Congress, which wrote intothe Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) eligibilitycriteria for CBI benefits which require protec-tion of United States copyrighted materials,particularly against unauthorized broadcast-ing. Throughout the region, the United States



RgPORT OFTHEREGISTEROF COPYRIGHIS, 1983

and neighboring countries are now beginningto come to grips with the intellectual propertyaspects of satelli te communications.

One message which came through loud and

clear from the WIPO piracy symposium was

the importance of U.S. ratification of theBrussels Satellite Convention, a basic interna-

tional agreement pledging states to suppresssatellite signal "poaching." United States mo-

tion picture industry representatives at thesymposium called for prompt ratification ofthe convention by the United States and urgedits widest possible acceptance by all states.

The program for study of the copyrightproblems arising out of cable television's re-lationships with broadcasting continued tocommand attention in 1982-83. On December

13, 1982, Subcommittees on Television byCable of the Berne and UCC Committees metjointly in Paris with the IntergovernmentalCommittee of the Rome Convention. The sub-committees attempted to reach agreement onDraft Annotated Model Provisions, which

were intended to advise legislators on possibleapproaches to reconciling copyright interestswith those of cable.

The first subcommittees' meeting found itimpossible to agree on specific legislative-typeproposals, particularly on the questions ofcopyright liability for cable television retrans-missions of broadcasts within the latter's so-

called "zone of direct reception" and the

proper place of compulsory licensing schemes

in discharging cable's copyright liabilities.

The subcommittees met again in March

1983, with representatives of fifteen govern-

ments in attendance. Once again a consensus

eluded the participants, but, significantly, thesubcommittees abandoned the search formodel laws and embraced instead the concept

of a document setting forth more general

"principles." With the additional flexibility

provided by a "principles" framework, the

subcommittees progressed somewhat. Diver-

gent points of view could be expressed and

optional solutions or proposals could be noted.

Nonetheless, strong differences persisted overthe role of compulsory licensing and the treat-ment of retransmissions of conventionally re-

ceivable broadcast signals.Following a long and occasionally fractious

debate, the secretariats to the three affected

conventions were charged with the unenviabletask of further refining the annotated state-

ment of principles for consideration at a final

subcommittee session scheduled for Decem-ber 1983.

In Geneva on June 13, 1983, the World In-tellectual Property Organization convened the

second session of a Committee of Experts onthe Legal Protection of Computer Software toconsider a draft treaty for the internationalprotection of computer software. The draft of

the treaty that was discussed had been pre-pared by WIPO based upon earlier studies ofthe software protection question. Delegates tothe session were of the opinion that action ona special convention at that time was prema-ture in view of developments at the nationallevel.

WIPO had taken up this question in the1970s under the auspices of the Paris Inter-national Union for the Protection of IndustrialProperty since, at that time, most legal expertsgenerally believed that protection of computersoftware would be provided under a patent-like industrial property system. Earlier Com-

mittees had developed a Draft Model Law for

the Protection of Computer Software that

made substantial contributions to the develop-

ment of legal thinking about the protection to

be afforded to computer software at the na-

tional level. The draft treaty that was the

subject of discussion was based upon theprinciples contained in the Draft Model

provisions.

At the June meeting the experts were of the

general opinion that there was a significant

trend toward the recognition of computer

software as a type of literary work, and that

as such the present copyright conventions

might provide a workable framework for the



REPORTOFTHEREGISI'ER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1983

international protection of computer pro-grams. In view of this situation the committee

endorsed the suggestion that WIPO andUnesco jointly study and convene a committeeof experts to examine the extent of protectionprovided by the existing international copy-right conventions.

The committee also considered the questionof the protection of integrated circuit or semi-conductor chips and recommended that WIPO

take action to study this question and prepare

a working paper to be submitted to govern-ments and interested organizations and that

further discussion be held on the ways inwhich this protection might be provided.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID LADDRegister of Copyrights andAssistant Librarian of Congressfor Copyright Services



RgPORTOFTHEREGISIgR OF COPYRiGHTS. 1983

International Copyright Relations of the United States as of September 30, 1983

This able eets forthU.S. copyright mlationsofcufient inter& with theother independent nations of the world.Each entry gives country name (and altmnate name) and a statement of copyright relations. The followingcode ie used:

Bilateral Bilateral copyright relations with the United States by virtue of a proclamation or treaty, asof the date given. Where there ie more than one proclamation or treaty, only the date of thefirst one is given.

BAC Party to theBuenoe A h s Convention of 1910, e of thedate given. U.S. ratification depositedwith thegov-nt of Argentha. May 1, 1911;proclaimed by the President of the UnitedStates, July 13, 1914.

UCC Geneva Party to the Universal Copyright Convention, Geneva,1952, sof the date given. The effectivedate for the United States was September 16, 1955.

UCC Paris Party to the Universal CopyrQht Convention as revised at Paris, 1971,as of the date given.The effective date for the United States was July 10, 1974.

Phonogram Party to the Convemtion far the Protection of Producers of Phonogramsagainst UnauthorizedDuplication of Their Phonograms, Geneva. 1971, s of the date given. The effective date forthe United Stateswas March 10, 1974.

Unclear Became independent since 1943.Hasnotastabllshedcopyright mlations with theUnited States,but may be honoring obligations incurred under former political status.

None No copyright relations with the United States.-one

Alh.ai.

None

A b dUCC Geneva Aug. 28, 1973UCC Paris July 10, 1974

Ansol.Unclear

An- Bdmd aUnclear

Bilateral Aug. 23. 1934

BAC April 19, 1950UCC Geneva Feb. 13, 1958

Phonogmm June 30, 1973

ABilateral Mar. 15, 1918

UCC Geneva May 1, 1969

UCC Paria Feb. 28, 1978Phonogram June 22, 1974

AprM. BeninBilateral Sept. 20, 1907 (formerly Dahomey)UCC Geneva July 2, 1957 UnclearPhonogram Aug. 21, 1982 Bhutan

- TheUCC Geneva Jdy 10, 1973Ucc Paris Dec. 27, 1976

BahninNone

B m d r WUCC Geneva Aug. 5, 1975

Pad6 A u ~ ., 1975

Barbad01

UCC Geneva June 18, 1983UCC Paris June 18, 1983Phonogram July 29, 1983

Bel.11

Unclear

w=B i h t e d July.I, 891UCC Geneva Aug. 31,1960

Belize

UCC Geneva Sept. 21, 1981

None

Bolivia

BAC May 15, 1914

Botswana

Unclear

BrazilBilatetal Apr. 2, 1957BAC Aug. 31, 1915UCC Geneva Jan. 13,1960ucc Pariak.1, 1975Phonogram Nov. 28. 1975

UCC Geneva June 7, 1975

UCC Paris June 7, 1975

BwmaUnclear

IhurmdiUnclear

CunbodfP

(See entry under Kampuchea)



REPORT OF THERBCISrW OF COF'YRIGHTS, 1983

CPm-nUCC Geneva May 1, 1973

UCC Pa& J d y 10. 1974

GanadaBilateral Jan. 1, 1924UCC Geneva Aug. 10, 1962

cape vsrdsUnclear

(.hltdAmcan Republicunclear

ChadUnclear

muelBilateral May 25, 1896

BAC June 14, 1955UCC Geneva Sept. 16, 1955Phonogram March 24, 1977

chinaBilateral Jan. 13, 1904

ColombiaBAC Dec. 23, 1936


UCC Paria June 18, 1976

(hlncuwUnclear

Congounclear

cod. h '

B h t e d Oct. 19, 1899BAC Nov. 30, 1916UCC Geneva Sept. 16, 1955UCC Paris Mar.7, 1980Phonogram June 17, 1982

Cuh

B h d OV.17, 1903UCC Geneva June 18, 1957

QPmUnclear

l3dudlw. Id.

Bilateral Mar. 1, 1927

ucc Geneva Jan. 6, 1960UCC Paris Apr. 17, 1980

Deumark

Bilateral May 8, 1893

Geneva Feb. 9, 1962PhonogmmMar.24, 1977UCC Paris July 11, 1979

D)ibOdUnclear- ~ -

Dominic.Unclear

Dominic.paep*'BAC Oct. 31, 1912UCC Geneva May 8, 1983

UCC Pa& May 8, 1983

Phonogmm with Federal Republic of Germany May 18, 1974

UCC Genevawith ~ e rm a n emo-cratic Republic Oct.5, 1973

UCC Pariswith German De-cratic Republic Dec. 10, 1980

GhanaUCC Geneva Aug. 22, 1962

Ecuador Grwa ,BAC Aug. 31, 1914 Bilateral Mar. 1, 1932

UCC Geneva June5, 1957 UCC Geneva Aug. 24, 1963

Phonogmm Sept. 14, 1974 Grenada

QWPt Unclear

Phonogram Apr. 23, 1978 G ~ m t w d aFor works other than sound re- BACw.28, 1913cordings,none UCC Geneva Oct. 28, 1964

Rl ~ v d o r Phonogram Feb. 1, 1977

Bilateral June 30, 1908, y virtue ofGaMexico City Conmntion, 1902 ucc Geneva N ~ ~ .3, 1981

UCC Geneva Mar. 29, 1979UCC Paris Mar. 29, 1979

UCC Pa& Nov. 13, 1981

Phonognun Feb. 9, 1979 Gu i n e a - B h u

EquatoridGuineaUnclear

Unclear Guyana

Ethiopia UnclearNone Haiti

HtiBAC Nov. 27, 1919

UCC Geneva Oct. 10, 1970 UCC Geneva Sept. 16, 1955

Phonogram Apr. 18, 1973 Honduras'

Finland BAC Apr. 27, 1914Bilateral Jan. 1, 1929UCC Geneva Apr. 16, 1963

HungergBilateral Oct. 16, 1912

Phonogram Apr. 18, 1973 UCC Geneva Jan. 23, 1971France UCC Paris Jdy 10, 1974

Bilateral J d y 1, 1891 Phonogram May 28, 1975

UCC Geneva Jan. 14, 1956 IcelandUCC Paris Jdy 10, 1974 UCC Geneva Dec. 18, 1956Phonogram Apr. 18, 1973

G hIndia

Unclear Bilateral Aug. 15, 1947

UCC G e m an. 21, 1958Gambia, The Phonogram Feb. 12, 1975Unclear

In*

- UnclearB h k d Apr. 15, 1892

IrulUCC Geneva with Federal Republic NoDll

of &many Sept. 16, 1955UCC Paria with Federal Republic of Iraq

Germany July 10, 1974 None



REPORT OF THE REZISlBR OFCOPYIUGMS,1903

blend

Bilateral Oct. 1, 1929UCC Geneva Jan. 20, 1959

h e 1Bilateral May 15, 1948


Phonogram May 1, 1978

I ~ YBilateral Oct. 31, 1892

UCC Geneva Jan. 24. 1957

Phonogram Mar. 24, 1977

UCC Parie Jan. 25, 1980

Ivory CoaEt

Unclear

JamaicaNone

J ~ P M 'UCC Gemya Apr. 28, 1956

UCC Parb Oct. 21, 1977

Phonograrn Oct.14, 1978

JordanUnclear

KampucheaUCC Geneva Sept. 16, 1955

K-3-

UCC Geneva Sept. 7, 1966UCC Pads July 10, 1974

Phonogram Apr. 21, 1976

mbati

Unclear

KoreaUnclear

KuwaitUnclear

LaosUCC Geneva Sept. 16. 1955

Leb.non

UCC Geneva Oct. 17, 1959

LesothoUnclear

LiberiaUCC Geneva July 27, 1956

LibaUnclear

LSscbtsar&bn

UCC Geneva Jan. 22, 1859

L-rylBilateral June 29, 1910


Phonogmm Mar. 8, 1976

M.dy-(Malagasy Republic)Unclear

MplpwiUCC Geneva Oct. 26,1965

m a *Unclear

Maldivg

UnclearMaliUnclear

MaltaUCC Geneva Nov. 19, 1968

huriteniaUnclear

Modtim

UCC Geneva Mar. 12, 1968

MexicoBilateral Feb. 27, 1896

BAC Apr. 24, 1964

UCC Geneva May 12, 1957

UCC Paris 013.1, 1975Phonogram Dec. 21, 1973

Monaco

Bilateral Oct. 15, 1952


Parish.3, 1974

Phonogram Dec. 2, 1974

MongokNone

MolUcCoUCC Geneva May 8, 1972

UCC Paris Jan. 28, 1976

Mozambique

UnclearNauruUnclear

Nep.lNone

NetherlPndrBilateral Nov. 20,1889


New &almdBilateral Dec. 1, 1916


Phonogram Aug. 13, 1976

Nicaragua'BAC Dec. 15, 1913

UCC Geneva Aug. 16, 1961

Nb-Unclear

NigeriaUCC Geneva Feb. 14, 1962

Norway

Bilateral July1,

1905UCC Geneva Jan. 3, 1963

UCC Paris Aug. 7, 1974

Phonogram Aug. 1. 1978

omanNone

PakistanUCC Geneva Sept. 16, 1955

P.lrpnuBAC Nov. 25, 1913


UCC Paria Sept. 3, 1980

Phonognun June 29, 1974

Papua New Guinea

Unclear

Psr~guayBAC Sept. 20, 1917

UCC Geneva Mar. 11, 1962

Phonogram Feb. 13, 1979

PemBAC Apr. 30, 1920


PhilippineoBilateral Oct. 21, 1948

UCC statusundetermined byUnesco. (Copyright Officeconsiders that UCC relationsdo not axid.)

PolandB i l a d Feb. 16, 1927

UCC Geneva Mar. 9,1977Urn Paris Uar. 9, 1977

porhrgalBilateral.July 20, 1893

UCC Geneva Dec. 25, 1956

UCC Paris July 30, 1981



Qafpr

None

spein

Bilateral July 10, 1895UCC Geneva Sept. 16, 1955

Romania UCC Paris July 10, 1974

Bilateral May 14, 1928 Phonogram Aug. 24, 1974

Uganda

Unclear

United Arab EmiratesNone

RwandaUnclear

Sri rPnlrPUnclear United Kingdom

Bilateral July 1. 1891UCC Geneva Sept. 27. 1957UCC Paris July 10, 1974Phonogram Apr. 18, 1973

SudanSaint Christopher and Nevis UnclearUnclear

SwinamSaint Lucia UnclearUnclear

S w d a n d

saint vincent and the Gramdiner unclearUnclearSweden

Upper VoltaUnclear

UrueuaJ'BAC Dec. 17, 1919

Phonogram Jan. 18, 1983an MerinoNone

Bilateral June 1, 1911UCC Geneva July I,1961

ucc P d uly 10, 1974Phonogram Apr. 18, 1973 Vanuatu

UnclearSAo Tom6 and PrfndpeUnclear

SwikedmdBilateral July 1, 1891UCC Geneva Mar. 30, 1956audi AnMa

NoneVatican City

[Holy See)UCC Geneva Oct. 5, 1955

Phonogram July 18, 1977

UCC Parb May 6. 1980

s*Uncleare g d

Geneva July 9, 1974ucc Paris July 10, 1974 Tanzania

UnclearVenezuelaUCC Geneva Sept. 30, 1966Phonogram Nov. 18, 1982

WCh*Unclear Thailand

Bilateral Sept. 1, 1921

Sierra LeoneNone

TogoUnclear

VietnamUnclear

swapomUnclear

TongaNone Western Samoa

UnclearSolomon WandsUnclear

Trinidad and TobagoUnclear

Yemen (Aden)UnclearSomalia Tunisia

UCC Geneva June 19, 1969UCC Paris June 10, 1975

UnclearYemen (San'a]Noneouth Africa

Bilateral July 1, 1924 -hNone

YugoslaviaUCC Geneva May 11, 1966

UCC Paris July 10, 1974

Soviet Union mdu

UCC Geneva May 27, 1973 Unclear



REPORTOFTHE REGI!XER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1883

Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe

Phonogram Nov. 29, 1977 UCC Geneva June1,1965 UnclearFor works other than sound re-

cordings, unclear

Belize notified the DlmtorGeneral of Uneeco on December 1, 1982, of its decbion to apply 'pmvidonally, and on

the basis of reciprocity"the U n i d Copyright Convention as adopted atGeneva on Sepasmber 6, 1952, the application

ofwhich had been c#tended to itsterritory before the attainmentof independence from the United Kingdom on Sopaember

21, 1981.2 Effective!June 30,1908, thia countrybecame a party to the 1902 M d w City Convwntion,towhich the United Stater

also became a party effectiw the eame deba 16 regardo copyright relations with the United Stabs. th ia co~mntions con-

sideredto havebeen eupersededby adherenceof his country and the United Staterto the Buenae Aims Comntion of 1910.

Bhteral copyrightrelations h n apanand the United Statee,whichwre formulated affective!May 10, l906, are

considered to havebeen duo@& and supersededbythe a d h e m of Japan o the U n i v dCo CbmmnUon.Genwa,

lQ52, ffective!April 28, 1956.

Section 104 of the copyright law (title 17of the United States Code) is reprinted below:

S104. Subject matter of copyright: Nationalorigin

(a) UNPUBLISHED WORKS.-The worksspecified by sections 102 and 103, while un-published, are subjectdo protection under thistitle without regard to the nationality ordomicile of the author.

(b) PUBLISHED WORKS. -The works

specified by sections 102 and 103, when- published, are subject to protection under thistitle if-

(1)on the date of ixstpublication, oneor more of the authom is a national ordomiciliaryof he Unitad States, or isa na-tional, domiciliary, or sovereignauthorityof a foreign nation that is a party to acopyrighttreaty o which theUnited Statesis also a arty, or is a stateless person,Lherever personmay be domiciled; or

(2) the work is firstpublished in theUnited States or in a foreign nation that,on the date of first publication, is a partyto the Universal Copyright Comntion; or

(3) the work is first published by theUnited Nations or any of its specializedagencies, or by the Organization ofAmerican States; or

(4) the work comes within the scopeof a Presidential proclamation. Wheneverthe hs id en t finds that a particular foreignnation extends, o works by authors who are

nationals or domiciliaries of the UnitedStates or to works that are first publishedin the United States, copyright protection

on substantially the same basis as that onwhich the foreign nation extends protectionto works of its own nationals anddomiciliaries and works first published inthat nation, the President may by procla-mation extend protection under this title toworks of which one or mare of the authorsis, on the date of first publication, anational, domiciliary, or sovereign author-ity of that nation, or which was first pub-lished in that nation. The President mayrevise, suspend, or revoke any such proc-lamation or impose any conditions orlimitations on protection under aproclamation.



Number of Registmtions by Subject Matter of Copyright. Fiscal Year 1983

camWW Ofmaterial Published Unpublished 'lbtal

Nondmmatic literary worksMonographs ....................................... 100. 922

Seriale............................................ 106.135

Machine-readable worb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.342

Total ........................................... 210. 399

Works of the performing artsMusical woks ..................................... 26. 752

Dramatic works. including any accompanying music .... 882

Choreography and pantomimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Motion pictures and fiLnsMps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 436...........................................otal 38. 102 110.452 146.554

Works of the visual artsTwo-dimentional works of fine and graphic art. including

prints and art reproductions; sculptural works; tech-nical drawings and models; photographs; commefcialprints and labels; w o h of applied art ............... 23. 950 13. 019 36.969.................................artographicwoh 433 9 442

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. 383 13,028 37. 411

sound r e c ~ r d i ~ g ~..................................... 9. 284 12.465 21. 749

Multimedia works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.978 111 2.089

Grand total ...................................... 282. 146 167.018 440. 164

Renew& ............................................. 39. 092

Total. ll regishations............................. 488. 256



REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, la83

Disposition of Copyright Deposits, Fiscal Year 1083

Received forcopyright

registmtionand addedto copyright

Cat8gory of material collection

Received forcopyr&ht

regirrtration Acs-

and forwarded or depositedto 0 t h ~ without

depertments of copyrightthe Libmy regishtion lbtal

Nondrematic literary worksMonographs, including machine+rendable

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .orks 82,792 133,480 7,764 224,036

Serials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . none 212,270 210,958 423.228

.............................otal 82,792 345,750 218,722 647,284

Works of the performing arts

Musical works; dramatic worb, includingany accompanyingmusic;choreography

...................nd pantomimes. 129,478 31,745 123 161,346

........otion piduma and flknsMps.. 719 13,864 824 15,407

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,197 45,609 947 176.753

Works of the visual arte

Two-dimensional worb of5 ndgraphic art, including printa and art

reproductions;d p W orks;technical drawings and models;p h o bgraphs; commemial printa and labels;

...............orks of applied art.. 66.479 860 280 67.619

Cartographic works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 733 560 1,435

Total ............................. 66,621 1,593 840 69,054

Sound recordings ........................ 15,935 8,903 909 25,747

Total,all deposits3.................. 295,545 401,855 221,418 918,818

Of thh total,81,798 copfee wenr t n d e m d o the gxebrnsemd Gift Mvioion fix usein it#progmms.2 Of thir total, 66,714 copier were t r a n d d to tbs Exchange and GiftMvirion for use in ib programs.3 Includeu 2,870 motion plctursr retumsd to remitten under the Motion PichueAgmment.



RgPORT OF THE RBGISIEROFCOPYRIGHTS. 1983

Summary of Copyright Business. Fiscal Year 1983

Registration Fees

Published works at $10.00. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 282. 146 $2.821.460.00

Unpublished works at $10.00 .................................. 167.018 1,670,180.00

R e n e d s a t $ 6 00 ............................................ 39. 092 234.552.00

Total registrations for fee ................................ 488. 256. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .ees for recording documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ees for certified documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ees for searches made . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .ees for import statementsFees for deposit receipts under 17 U.S.C. 407 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fees for full-term stomge of deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Feesforspecialhandling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4,726,192.00

158,297.50

37,096.00

115,727.20

1,002.00

660.00

none135.000.00

Total fees exclusive of registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447.782.70

T d ees ............................................................ 5.173.974.70

Statement of Gross Cash Receipts and Number of Registrations

for the Flscal Years 1977-1983

PercentageGross Number of increase or decrease

Fiscal year receipts registrations in registrations

Reflects changes in reporting p d m



Financial Statement of Royalty Res for Compulsory Licenses for Secondary

h s m i s s i o n s by Cable Systems for Calendar Year 1982.....................................oyalty fees deposited $39.691.020.33

Interest income paid on investments 2,578,734.31........................$42,269,754.64

Less:Operati-co Sts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.667.00

Refundsiasued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517.855.40

Investments purchased at cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.822.741.79

Copyright Royalty Tribunal Cost for Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.164.00

41.733.428.19

Balance as of September 30. 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536.326.45

Face amount of securities purchased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.825.000.00

Cable royalty fees for calendar year 1082 available for distribution by theCopyrightRoyaltyTribunal ............................................... 42.361.326.45

Financial Statement of Royalty Fbes for Compulsory Licenses fir

Coin-Opemted Players [Jukebox~s]or Calendar Year 1983

Royalty fees deposited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.696.253.50

Interest income paid on investments ........................... 111.013.75

Lsss:Operatingcosts ........................................ 160.041.00

Refunds bed ........................................ 4.531.00

Investments purchaeed at cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.513.125.17

Balance as of September 30. 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,470.08

Face amount of securities purchased ......................................... 2.333.000.00

Estimated interest income due September 30. 1984 ............................. 424.314.37

Jukebox oyalty fees for calendar year 1983 available for distributionby the Copyright Royalty Tribunnl ......................................... 2.887.784.45



REPORTOFTHEREGEXEROF CXPYRIGHTS,iW

Copyright Registmtions, 1790-1983

Patent Office'District Library of

Courts' Congress' Labels Prints 'Ibtal



Copyright Registrations, 1790-1983

Ratent Office a

D W c t Library ofCourte' C0ngm88 ' Iabels Prints 'Ibtal nta1



RtpoRTOFTHERBCISlgR OFO O P Y R I m , 1883

Copyright egistmtfons,1790-1983

Went Office 'District Library of

Courts' Congme Iabele Prints lbtal 'ibtal

1961 247,014 247,014

1962 254,776 254,776

1963 264,845 264,845

1964 278,987 278,987

1965 293,617 293,617

1966 286,866 286,866

1967 294,406 294,406

1968 303,451 303,451

1969 301,258 301,2581970 316,466 316,466

1971 329,696 329,696

1972 344,574 344,574

1973 353,648 353,048

1974 372,832 372,832

1975 401,274 401.274

1976 410.969 410,969

1976 Transitional qtr. 108,762 108,7621977 452,702 452,702

1978 '331,942 5331,942

1979 429,004 429,004

1980 464,743 404,743

198 471,178 471,178

1982 468,149 468,149

1983 488,256 488,256

Total 150,000 19,100,890 55,348 18,098 73,446 19,324,336

Eathated regbtmtions made in the o& aa of theClerks of theDistrict Courts (EOU~CB:pamphlet entitled Records in

the CopyrightOfPce Deposited by the United Stater District Courts Covering the Period 1700-1870, byWinA. Roberts,Cbief h8-t Lib-, Librprg ofbm.838).

~ R e g W o m ade in the Libmy ofCongre~nder the Librarian,calendaryean 1870-1887 (source:Annual ReportsoftheL i bwa n ) .Regbtmtlonanude intheCopyrightOfficeunder theRegbtexofCopyrights. fiecalyeers 1898-1871 (murce:

Annual Reports of the Regirrter).S I a b e l e registered in Patent Offtce, 875-18% Printa qL tered in Patent Office,1893-1840 (some: memorandum

from Patent O h e , dated Feb. 13, 1858, barsd on official reports and computations).

4Regbhti0ns made July 1,1876, throughSeptember30,1876, reportedaepamtelyowing o the statutory changemak-

ing the fiscalyears run from October 1 hrough September 30 Insteadof July1 hough June30.

BReflecte changer in reporting procedure.